Accuracy Claims for Belt Weighers

There is a tendency for those who have purchased a 0.5% accurate instrument, to simply
believe that the device could not have an error worse than 0.5%. The answers that come
from it seem to have an unearthly authority and users seem to believe that the device
will always tell the truth except perhaps on a bad day when it might have an error of as
much as 0.5%.

Primary instruments that measure simple parameters such as temperature and pressure
can have a known accuracy if used correctly, however, belt weighers, are more complex
devices which measure two noisy, error prone inputs (weight and distance) and very
often have to be ‘adjusted’ to get the right result. It is more the truth that a 0.5% belt
weigher will read within +/-0.5% of the truth, if used correctly, on a good day, however,
if not carefully maintained will more often give answers within +/-2 to 3% of the truth
or even worse.

Given that a belt weigher that is really accurate and reliable would be a much sort after
device, it’s important to know how belt weigher accuracy is determined by the
manufacturers, and how their accuracy claims are best understood.

Most belt weighers use modern strain gauge load cells to measure the weight input of a
belt scale, and process the information with a microprocessor. The microprocessor can
be errorless in operation and almost any good modern load cell will hold accuracy
within +/-0.1% for more than a year over a wide range of temperatures. Why then, does
there seem to be a need to continually calibrate belt weighers? Why it is so hard to get a
0.25% belt weigher?

To answer the question, the concepts of Random and Systematic error need to be
discussed and their application to belt weighing explained. Then it will be possible to
respond in a more informed way to belt weigher sales talk and be better equipped to
choose the right equipment for projects.

Random Error and Systematic Error

Random Error, also called “Non repeatability” is the name for the errors which are seen
when the same measurement is repeated over and over. Systematic error, on the other
hand, is the error that is always there.

As a simple example, if you weigh yourself on your bathroom scales many times over
several days, you won’t always get the same answer. There are many potential reasons
for this: the temperature has changed, you did not stand on the scale the same way, there
is some vibration about, or the bathroom scale battery is going flat, just to name a few.
We now have a list of weights, and we can work out the standard deviation and average
weight from our list of measurements. (The standard deviation is a measure of the
variability of the results).
We might be tempted to assume that our true weight is the calculated average weight;
however, a trip to the Fair Trading calibration facility would soon confirm a weight in
which you could have much more confidence. Let’s call the weight from Fair Trading,
the True Weight, so we can do some calculations;

Systematic error= Average Weight – True Weight

Random Error: - related to the standard deviation of our list of measurements.

This can be the working understanding of random and systematic error. Random error is
often easily found out by repeatedly testing equipment with the same ‘test sample’. The
determination of systematic error is more difficult, requiring the use of an outside
reference standard, usually from a standards authority.

You might argue that weighing yourself is not a good example because weight varies
from day to day, hour to hour. The comment is correct. However, this example
highlights the difficulty which is often faced with testing instruments using the ‘same’
test sample. The more complex the instrument, the more difficult it is to apply an
identical test sample.

Having introduced the terms, we need to understand their role in belt weighing.

Random error affects calibration

Imagine first a belt weighing system with a +/-1% random error. In statistical terms,
let’s say that two standard deviations is equal to 1% and therefore we expect 95% of all
readings to lie within a +/-1% error band.

Suppose we want to calibrate this weighing system, and we apply a mass to it, taking
only one reading as the basis of our calibration. It is easy to see that the calibration of
the scale might now quite easily have a built in error of up to 1.0%, which will always
be there. Now when the weighing system is used to weigh something, the error could be
as much as 1%+/-1%.

It can be seen that in calibrating belt weighers, we need to have some understanding of
the repeatability or randomness of the unit. Best practice is to always base calibration on
a series of measurements. The more random the device, the more care is required in
calibrating it, so as to reduce systematic error to a minimum. Calibration might be
defined as “reducing systematic error to zero” or “reducing systematic error to
acceptable levels”.

Sources of Random Error

In Belt Weighing, random errors come from “influence factors” such as belt tension
affects, idler roll alignment and out of round, the general sensitivity of the belt scales
weigh frame to alignment, temperature and belt tension. These factors move slowly
around in circles so that over a year, a typical highly random belt scale may move
around inside a few percent range. While there are only a few fundamental sources of
variability, they take many forms; here is a brief list;

1. Weigh frame deflection and belt stiffness

2. Weigh frame sensitivity to the position at which calibration masses are applied
3. Weigh frame friction, stiction and hysteresis.
4. Belt tension, variability of belt tension (say sticky GTU or a screw take-up)
5. Weigh frame initial alignment quality
6. Uncontrolled spillage which is not zeroed off,

And, thinking now of the tachometer;

1. Connection of the tachometer to belt, skip, slip, bounce

2. Stability of diameter in the face of process material build-up
3. Angle of wrap around pick-up pulley and belt tension variation

The apparent randomness of a belt weigher stems from the cross sensitivity of the units,
two measuring sensors (weigh frame and tachometer) to other “influence factors” which
come primarily from a weight measurement which is being conducted dynamically
through a taught moving conveyor belt.

The knowledge of how to reduce influence factors to quantifiable and acceptable levels,
is key to the design of good belt weighing equipment. As a weigh frame becomes more
adequate in its ability to eliminate the randomness that comes from outside influence
factors, its build cost increases.

It is the belt weigher supplier’s responsibility to ensure that the equipment is matched to
the application, in terms of performance. This often leads to the cost of equipment being
viewed as not competitive. One of the difficulties of the business is that in order to
make a sale, an inadequate belt weigher is very often offered, and accepted by a
customer who is not armed with sufficient knowledge to make the best choice.

Systematic Errors

Systematic errors come from

 the inherent randomness of the belt weigher itself, and

 the difficulty of simulating a live load of material on the belt.

The solution to this can only come from an appropriate combination of

 Always taking multiple measurements to overcome the affects of randomness or

to verify repeatability;
 Choosing more inherently stable weigh frame and tachometer systems, which
have known and acceptable immunity to influence factors; and
 Going to greater extremes in simulating live loads of material for calibration
purposes.
Experienced belt weigher manufacturers know that the best way to minimise systematic
errors in belt weighing is to choose substantial weigh frames which have a minimum of
random error. These same weigh frames are the most amenable to allowing simple and
accurate simulation of live load.